sschlichter

because it does not include Acts 1 and 1 Cor 15 or because it does not have background music?

Amaleq13

So you are acknowledging that it is false to claim that "Both state joy"?

You did not make that clear. It appeared as though you were continuing to defend that statement as true. Glad to see you are making some progress though apparently unwilling to admit it. :huh:

I am. It is incompatible with the chronology John clearly depicts.

The chronology John clearly depicts is not dependent upon my personal opinion. There is no other rational way to read John 20:1-15 except as a description of Mary's initial reaction to the empty tomb before having any clue that Jesus might be alive. This constitutes a detail of the texts which you must incorporate into your narrative rather than contradict.

Your ignorance of logical fallacies is amply demonstrated in this thread so such observations cannot be taken seriously by anyone who has read it.

From the angels and hearing the message. Quote-mining a quote to which you link is like writing a hold-up note on a personal deposit slip.

Because it continues to make no sense as an effort to show that "Both state joy" which is what you appeared to be attempting.

Fear is not rejection, let alone doubt.

There is no indication of rejection or doubt of the message in the texts. The texts only describe the opposite (ie joy).

Splitting up Matthew and Mark's depiction of the women's reactions on a timeline fails to eliminate the implausibility of the radical emotional change nor does it eliminate the incompatibility with John's clear chronology.

In fact, since you are essentially just shrinking the amount of time in which Mary goes from being joyful to doubting to the point where she pretends it never happened, it is less plausible. Now, instead of obtaining memory-erasing doubt during the walk back to Peter, it is obtained before she even leaves the tomb! :thumbs:

dr lazer blast

Rules, my narrative and the way I put it, not your personal intrepretation.


There you go again making strawmen and breaking the rules. Another invalid argument by you, you're full of them.




nice straw man. Another fallacious argument from you. I never said that fear is rejection, I said the did not believe what the angels said, THEN ran away in fear.
nice argument from silence, another fallacious argument from you.


Radical emotional change? you can't be serious, a radical emotional change is totally plausible given the supernatural circumstances of the angels descending from heaven talking and the guards dying and the earthquake.

You have failed once again to provide an argument WITHOUT a logical fallacy while staying within the rules of the challenge.


Keep trying, maybe one day you'll get it.

aChristian

Okay. One question at a time. Do you believe that it is possible for Mary's emotions to change at all from the time the women first went to the tomb until John 20:2?

Amaleq13

The chronology of John 20 is not dependent on my personal interpretation.

1. Mary sees the empty tomb.

2. Mary runs to Peter and expresses concern about the location of Jesus' dead body.

3. Mary returns to the empty tomb and is very sad because she doesn't know the location of Jesus' dead body.

4. Mary learns that Jesus is not dead.

Please explain how the above chronology is dependent upon my personal interpretation by offering an alternative.

Do you understand what "chronology" means in this context?

Given Matthew's joyful response, placing the angelic message between 1 and 2 is simply not plausible.

Given your chronology, the depiction of Mary in John 20 goes beyond merely doubting the angel's message to a complete rejection or denial that it is even a possibility. You can't get your "doubt" from the text but even that isn't far enough for what you are suggesting.

Pointing out that your "doubt" has no basis in the text is not an argument from silence and my reliance on what the text does state is certainly not fallacious.

She goes from joyfully hearing that Jesus is alive to behaving as though there is no other possibility than someone has stolen his body!! The specific radical change your narrative requires is not plausible and none of the details you mention improve that state.

Amaleq13

First, absent an intervening event, I would not expect those emotions to change much during the rush to return to the disciples.

Second, the question is too vague. What do you imagine her fear, amazement, and joy becoming? More importantly, why do you imagine them changing?

Third, it is not simply a question of emotions changing but one of going from being joyful in hearing that Jesus is alive to behaving as though the only possibility is a missing dead body.

dr lazer blast

it is entirely plausible that mary became joyful upon seeing the angel.



I told you like 3 pages back to get rid of doubt,. The joy came before the angels gave their message. Joy in the form hope, and after the message of she departed and fear set in. Example:

Mary is standing in the tomb, turns and sees the angels. Mary stands there amazed and then is over come with joy. Hopefully the angels will show her where Jesus is. The angels speak and mary is in disbelief. She runs away in fear and talks to peter.


yes it is an argument from silence, secondly i told you to remove doubt like 3 pages ago. More fallacies.


Once again you have broken the rules.
that is your personal interpretation and not in the narrative. It is plausible that mary ran to peter and said 'they have taken Jesus' 'they' is referring to the angels 'and we don't know where they have lain him' once again proving that it is a mixture of not understanding and not believing.

aChristian

So is your answer 'yes, it is possible'?

Amaleq13

I gave you my answer. What part confuses you?

Your question needs improvement.

Amaleq13

Just an angel? Maybe, though "fear" appears to be the most common emotion associated with simply encountering an angel in the Bible. But why ignore the message for which there can be no question that Mary would plausibly consider it good news? Why avoid the obvious?

OK, what is the new word you would like to use to describe Mary's sudden reversion to being solely concerned with the disposition of Jesus' dead body subsequent to being joyful to hear he was alive?

More like amnesia than doubt.

No, Matthew clearly has the message precede the joyful departure.

This continues to have no basis in the text and continues to be incompatible with the explicitly joyful reaction Matthew describes as Mary leaves.

You aren't following the rules. You forgot two other details provided about their departure. They were also amazed and joyful.

She runs away with fear, amazement, and joy after hearing Jesus is alive to express concern to Peter about where Jesus' dead body has been taken.

Utterly implausible.

Stop embarrassing yourself. Pointing out that your claim has no basis in the text is certainly not an argument from silence. The only one making a claim based on absent evidence is you.

No, it is my recognition of what the text actually states and my refusal to allow unsupported speculation to be included as though it was part of the text. No interpretation is involved.

No, her concern with the disposition of Jesus' dead body continues to be implausible given that she was just recently joyful to hear he was alive.


I see you failed to provide an alternate chronology for John 20. Should have been easy if your assertion was true. Now that your failure here establishes that your assertion about "personal interpretation" is utter crap, fix your narrative so as to eliminate the contradiction.